What is the Perfect Monitor

Soldato
Joined
16 Aug 2009
Posts
7,750
Matte screen (no glossy screens please) less than 5ms response times, 100hz minimum refresh rate, no ghosting or trailing, and a wide colour gamut and smooth colour gradients (no banding please). Adaptive sync. Not bothered about depth and that leads to another another issue - BLB in IPS monitors. Its a quality control issue as I understand it and there is far too much of it. It doesn't bother me too much (unless its gross and covers half the screen etc) as I don't spend a lot of time sitting in darkened rooms looking at black screens but other people do mind and it shouldn't be happening regardless.
 
Associate
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Posts
790
my personal opinion is that every manufacturer has the ability to make the most amazing screen - the issue is actually taking the plunge as the price may seem inhibitive as to how many would be sold - if you sell 5 a month its not financially viable.

But they don't seem to have this issue when it comes to TVs. I presume that's because the TV market is larger so the economies of scale naturally make it less risky. So why don't companies like LG who sell both Monitors and TVs piggyback their Monitor business on their TV business?

Surely there's a market for smaller OLED TVs in the region of 40''. Why not just use the exact same panel in monitors? Are the panels fundamentally different somehow? Alternatively why not just produce a TV with very low input lag, excellent response time, a TRUE high refresh rate and the connectivity to push it? People game on TVs too and you could absolutely market such a TV to console gamers and PC gamers.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Sep 2006
Posts
758
Alternatively why not just produce a TV with very low input lag, excellent response time, a TRUE high refresh rate and the connectivity to push it? People game on TVs too and you could absolutely market such a TV to console gamers and PC gamers.

Second this. curved 40-43" and i'd be sold.
 
Associate
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Posts
429
Aside from showcasing specs that people want, the other point to the thread from my side was to be able to showcase that if a monitor can be produced by any manufacturer that covers off all the specs, along with great build quality, no issues and a good warranty then money almost becomes irrelevant (to an extent, nobody would pay £5k for it, but if a 144Hz 1ms OLED ultrawide with all the bells and whistles came along for £2500 meaning people could be confident in their monitor purchase lasting the technology growth for 4-5 years then it would be bought)
I suspect, and time may prove me wrong, that ultrawide monitors will fade for non professional use. Reason being is that the minority of users have them, and are ever likely to have them, so it is not a major motivation in providing this feature for developers, mass market and all that. It is very much like SLI, it is buggy because it doesn't really matter. Such a small proportion of the world are prepared to spend £700 on a 1080 Ti, but it is a decent portion (the tech developed can be used in all lower offerings). However the portion prepared to buy 2 is relatively tiny.

As such if I was a manufacturer I would focus on technologies which have huge potential both short term for early adopters, and long term as premium alternatives. OLED is totally this, especially for a monitor. 4k vs. QHD the difference isn't nowhere near as pronoucned as the amazingness that HDR pictures, with supurb contrast ratios that OLED could deliver. And the reality is once the tech gets to the point that yields become not so terrible, it will become allot cheaper than the equivilent FALD LCD screens (hence why this technology is in zero TVs in 2017, all have adopted LGs OLED panels, except Samsung who is using their QLED tech which will be interesting to see the performance off..)
 
Associate
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Posts
429
as an aside really hope AMD pull one out of the bag, the premium paid on Gsync is ridiculous. Nvidia are having a laugh. Paying a premium for their top cards I can live with, but then double gouging on the monitor is taking the ****.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Dec 2010
Posts
1,837
Location
Washington D.C.
My perfect monitor outside of OLED:

32"
4K
Curved
144 Hz
G-Sync
ULMB with scanning back-light
FALD
HDR
IPS
Gloss surface
Very minimal bezel anodized matte black

I'd pay $3K-$4K for that.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
31,046
21.9 won't fade. It is getting more popular every year and game support has improved drastically over the last 1-2 years too. Iirc, the 21.9 resolutions have even over taken 4k on steam survey now, at least that was the case about a year ago (and 4k has been around for far longer as well as having far more monitors to choose from as well as being cheaper). I personally think 21.9 will become the new 16.9 at some point as 16.9 feels like 4.3 to 21.9 users now, at least for PC gaming monitors any way, although "if" that ever does happen, it won't be for at least another 4+ years...

For "professional" use, most would still be using 16.9 screens.

as an aside really hope AMD pull one out of the bag, the premium paid on Gsync is ridiculous. Nvidia are having a laugh. Paying a premium for their top cards I can live with, but then double gouging on the monitor is taking the ****.
No doubt the gsync module adds to the cost but it isn't necessarily just because of the module/nvidia, it is down to manufacturers having to redesign the assembly/chassis to accommodate the gsync module:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3129...ia-g-sync-on-monitor-selection-and-price.html
 

TNA

TNA

Caporegime
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
27,584
Location
Greater London
21.9 won't fade. It is getting more popular every year and game support has improved drastically over the last 1-2 years too. Iirc, the 21.9 resolutions have even over taken 4k on steam survey now, at least that was the case about a year ago (and 4k has been around for far longer as well as having far more monitors to choose from as well as being cheaper). I personally think 21.9 will become the new 16.9 at some point as 16.9 feels like 4.3 to 21.9 users now, at least for PC gaming monitors any way, although "if" that ever does happen, it won't be for at least another 4+ years...

For "professional" use, most would still be using 16.9 screens.


No doubt the gsync module adds to the cost but it isn't necessarily just because of the module/nvidia, it is down to manufacturers having to redesign the assembly/chassis to accommodate the gsync module:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3129...ia-g-sync-on-monitor-selection-and-price.html
At least you hope it won't anyway :p

Until we start getting all new games supporting it day one with proper support including FMV's etc it will remain a niche imo. So far not one game has done this that I am aware of. I am not against it by the way, I would like so see it happen, I just do not see many developers spending extra resources for it. If I get bored waiting for Freesync 2 monitor I may even get one for a while to try out something new for a while if I see it on offer.

There is a poll currently on The TechReport and less people on it than 4K and 4K is only just growing yet. In a few years when we have better hardware, there will be a lot more people going 4K 16:9 vs ultrawide.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
31,046
At least you hope it won't anyway :p

Until we start getting all new games supporting it day one with proper support including FMV's etc it will remain a niche imo. So far not one game has done this that I am aware of. I am not against it by the way, I would like so see it happen, I just do not see many developers spending extra resources for it. If I get bored waiting for Freesync 2 monitor I may even get one for a while to try out something new for a while if I see it on offer.

There is a poll currently on The TechReport and less people on it than 4K and 4K is only just growing yet. In a few years when we have better hardware, there will be a lot more people going 4K 16:9 vs ultrawide.
The vast majority of games do support it on day 1 though. To me cut scenes aren't that big of a deal and most 21.9 users over look it as when in actual game, that is where the 21.9 benefits really shine and why I and most others on the likes of here have bought into 21.9 as 16.9 gaming just feels so squashed especially in certain games where you have no FOV slider i.e. the division.

I don't think we'll never see 21.9 pre-rendered cut scenes unless the developers themselves get 21.9 screens or use in game engine to do the cut scenes like in far cry primal and some other ubi games. Not to mention their main priority are consoles, which aren't capable of 21.9 at all and most people only have the choice of 16.9 TVs so yeah pre-rendered 21.9 cut scenes won't happen any time soon imo.

It doesn't cost developers anything to implement the support. If some guy can get a fix on the day of release then I think multi million dollar game companies with a whole team can manage it :p For cutscenes, they could just produce/render them to be 21.9 like 90% of films and then have black bars at the top and bottom of 16.9 displays to give that "cinematic" experience.

We will have to see about 4k 16.9 vs ultrawide, 4k has been around for far longer than 21.9 and cheaper with more choice too. Personally I don't see 4k as a viable resolution even with the likes of a 1080ti as whilst it might perform well in current games today, what about next years games that will be even more demanding? We will be back to having to turn down settings to be able to hold 50+ FPS 90% of the time.

Only 2 games in the last year, which I am aware of that don't have proper support at all are overwatch and resident evil 7 (fixed with a 3rd party tweak)

I have been using 21.9 for 4+ years now and have played more than my fair share of games.

1-2 years - very patchy, had to rely on so many fixes and they were slow because it was pretty much the new kid on the block (only other choice was a few other 29" monitors and only one 34" 1440 monitor)
3rd year - big increase in users, official support was still patchy but with flawless widescreen and more people getting 21.9 monitors, fixes were available on the day of release
4-5th year - very good support overall and I haven't had to launch flawless widescreen or mess about with any config files

But as you know, I'm not bothered by cutscenes being in 16.9, the HUD/UI being stuck in 16.9 bothers me far more! :mad: Thankfully this is becoming a lot better too and surprisingly, it is ubisoft that are best for it...



You have to remember 4k is just a resolution at the end of the day with a fancy marketing spin put on it, it is not tied down to 16.9, you can have "4k" res. for 21.9 displays too.

EDIT:

Some news on upcoming HDR panels:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/37.htm#auo_samsung_roadmaps

We know that AU Optronics are investing in research in to HDR supporting backlights as a priority. These start with global dimming options with only 1 dimming area, and are of course the most cost effective. Edge Backlight Unit dimming with 8 or 16 areas are also under development, while the full flat direct backlight unit with >300 dimming areas is the best option for true HDR. Have a read of our HDR article for more information about this. AU Optronics are also establishing the feasibility of offering a full array (>300 areas) backlight for curved screens but it's not yet in development.

Panel wise, AUO will offer various HDR display options. The edge backlight options will come in flat 32" (2560 x 1440) and curved 35" (3440 x 1440) sizes and are based on VA panel technology. They will offer 8 backlight areas and a colour space of DCIP3 >=90%. 400 typical and 600 cd/m2 peak brightness is provided and these panels are forecast to go in to production in Q3 2017.

AUO are also now working on a 32" HDR IPS-type AHVA panel, with similar features as the asus 27" 4k 384 full array local dimming. A 3840 x 2160 ultra HD resolution, 384-zone backlight, HDR support, DCIP3>=95% and 400 - 800 cd/m2 brightness. This 32" version is expected to go in to production in Q4 2017 so is some way behind the 27" model. No confirmation on refresh rate of the 32" panel, although we don't believe it will be high refresh rate sadly as it is not listed in their gaming panels, whereas the 27" version is.

Samsung are investing in a couple of unique and interesting options as detailed below. Part numbers are not known at this stage:

  • 49" mega-wide panel - this panel will offer a massive 49" size, in a 32:9 aspect ratio which Samsung are referring to as a "Grand Circle" format. We knew about the plans to produce a panel like this back in January 2016, but more details are starting to emerge now which is good news. These are the current specs but could have course change between now and mass production. The resolution will be 3840 x 1080 (referred to as DFHD = double full HD). It will be a VA technology panel with a 1800R curvature and a 3-side frameless design. The panel will offer a high 5000:1 static contrast ratio which is pushing the CR beyond current Samsung VA panels in fact. Perhaps most interesting is that the panel will apparently support a 144Hz refresh rate, along with options for AMD FreeSync and NVIDIA G-sync. The panel is due to go in to mass production around September 2017

Personally I will avoid any type of edge lit local dimming monitor as it creates issues with certain scenes like the following:

g0XTkIH.png
 
Last edited:

TNA

TNA

Caporegime
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
27,584
Location
Greater London
The vast majority of games do support it on day 1 though. To me cut scenes aren't that big of a deal and most 21.9 users over look it as when in actual game, that is where the 21.9 benefits really shine and why I and most others on the likes of here have bought into 21.9 as 16.9 gaming just feels so squashed especially in certain games where you have no FOV slider i.e. the division.

I don't think we'll never see 21.9 pre-rendered cut scenes unless the developers themselves get 21.9 screens or use in game engine to do the cut scenes like in far cry primal and some other ubi games. Not to mention their main priority are consoles, which aren't capable of 21.9 at all and most people only have the choice of 16.9 TVs so yeah pre-rendered 21.9 cut scenes won't happen any time soon imo.

It doesn't cost developers anything to implement the support. If some guy can get a fix on the day of release then I think multi million dollar game companies with a whole team can manage it :p For cutscenes, they could just produce/render them to be 21.9 like 90% of films and then have black bars at the top and bottom of 16.9 displays to give that "cinematic" experience.

We will have to see about 4k 16.9 vs ultrawide, 4k has been around for far longer than 21.9 and cheaper with more choice too. Personally I don't see 4k as a viable resolution even with the likes of a 1080ti as whilst it might perform well in current games today, what about next years games that will be even more demanding? We will be back to having to turn down settings to be able to hold 50+ FPS 90% of the time.

Only 2 games in the last year, which I am aware of that don't have proper support at all are overwatch and resident evil 7 (fixed with a 3rd party tweak)

I have been using 21.9 for 4+ years now and have played more than my fair share of games.

1-2 years - very patchy, had to rely on so many fixes and they were slow because it was pretty much the new kid on the block (only other choice was a few other 29" monitors and only one 34" 1440 monitor)
3rd year - big increase in users, official support was still patchy but with flawless widescreen and more people getting 21.9 monitors, fixes were available on the day of release
4-5th year - very good support overall and I haven't had to launch flawless widescreen or mess about with any config files

But as you know, I'm not bothered by cutscenes being in 16.9, the HUD/UI being stuck in 16.9 bothers me far more! :mad: Thankfully this is becoming a lot better too and surprisingly, it is ubisoft that are best for it...



You have to remember 4k is just a resolution at the end of the day with a fancy marketing spin put on it, it is not tied down to 16.9, you can have "4k" res. for 21.9 displays too.

EDIT:

Some news on upcoming HDR panels:



Personally I will avoid any type of edge lit local dimming monitor as it creates issues with certain scenes like the following:

g0XTkIH.png

Interesting news. I wonder, does this mean Freesync 2 monitor's are still 6-12 month's away?

So you getting the massive 49" 32:9 aspect ratio Samsung monitor then? It might be more "immersive" :p
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
31,046
Interesting news. I wonder, does this mean Freesync 2 monitor's are still 6-12 month's away?

So you getting the massive 49" 32:9 aspect ratio Samsung monitor then? It might be more "immersive" :p

bTHZmH5.png

Ha! Not a chance! :p

I wouldn't go any bigger than 34" for 21.9 (whatever aspect ratio they want to call it) as the "monitor" just becomes to wide for use imo.

I also dread to see what the price will be!
 

TNA

TNA

Caporegime
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
27,584
Location
Greater London
bTHZmH5.png

Ha! Not a chance! :p

I wouldn't go any bigger than 34" for 21.9 (whatever aspect ratio they want to call it) as the "monitor" just becomes to wide for use imo.

I also dread to see what the price will be!
You should do one 49 inch 32:9 vs the 34 inch 21:9 :)

Anyway, getting a bit of topic here. Don't want to over do it as someone will likely complain soon. I just wanted to do it a little to bury the post where a guy is happy to pay $4K. We do not need Daniel to see that one :p
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
31,046
You should do one 49 inch 32:9 vs the 34 inch 21:9 :)

Anyway, getting a bit of topic here. Don't want to over do it as someone will likely complain soon. I just wanted to do it a little to bury the post where a guy is happy to pay $4K. We do not need Daniel to see that one :p
They don't have the 32.9 option yet... :p

Well we will know who to thank when we start seeing $4k monitors! :p ;)
 
Associate
Joined
12 Dec 2010
Posts
1,837
Location
Washington D.C.
16:9 isn't going anywhere and 21:9 will always be niche. 1080p, 4K, 8K, virtually all TV's and laptops are 16:9. 21:9 computer monitors I doubt make up less than 0.1% of all monitors sold.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
31,046
Same was said about 4:3 etc. :p ;) :D

It does seem like more people generally prefer a wider FOV/display especially for media consumption, which is why 16.10 lost to 16.9. Even the new phones this year are jumping to a wider aspect ratio. And we will probably see some more 21.9 laptops at some point too given the increased horizontal space, we even got a powerhouse 21.9 laptop now as well:


The only thing that really holds backs 21.9 TVs is that the vast majority of TV shows are shot in 16.9, if TV shows switched to 21.9 then we should see a lot more 21.9 TVs made and as a result consoles would also switch to 21.9 or at least support it.

But yeah I don't expect 16.9 to go anywhere for a very long time, if/when TV shows switch to 21.9 then I expect to see a huge surge.


Just had a look at steam survey and 4k has gone up a lot:

ZD0cyuI.png

21.9 res. still in the lead for now..... :p Either way, that still isn't bad considering 4k monitors have been around for far longer, as well as a far bigger choice as well as being cheaper.

But once again, remember that 4k is just a resolution it and the benefits a higher resolution/PPI brings isn't limited to 16.9.

EDIT:

Heck, even 21.9 aspect ratio isn't exactly limited to dedicated 21.9 displays as you can create custom 21.9 resolutions on 16.9 displays.
 
Last edited:

TNA

TNA

Caporegime
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
27,584
Location
Greater London
Same was said about 4:3 etc. :p ;) :D

It does seem like more people generally prefer a wider FOV/display especially for media consumption, which is why 16.10 lost to 16.9. Even the new phones this year are jumping to a wider aspect ratio. And we will probably see some more 21.9 laptops at some point too given the increased horizontal space, we even got a powerhouse 21.9 laptop now as well:


The only thing that really holds backs 21.9 TVs is that the vast majority of TV shows are shot in 16.9, if TV shows switched to 21.9 then we should see a lot more 21.9 TVs made and as a result consoles would also switch to 21.9 or at least support it.

But yeah I don't expect 16.9 to go anywhere for a very long time, if/when TV shows switch to 21.9 then I expect to see a huge surge.


Just had a look at steam survey and 4k has gone up a lot:

ZD0cyuI.png

21.9 res. still in the lead for now..... :p Either way, that still isn't bad considering 4k monitors have been around for far longer, as well as a far bigger choice as well as being cheaper.

But once again, remember that 4k is just a resolution it and the benefits a higher resolution/PPI brings isn't limited to 16.9.

EDIT:

Heck, even 21.9 aspect ratio isn't exactly limited to dedicated 21.9 displays as you can create custom 21.9 resolutions on 16.9 displays.
Let it go sport. 16:9 is here to stay for a while ;):p
 
Back
Top Bottom